Craig Gardner Energy Technology Company Drilling and … · 2017. 5. 11. · lengthened to correspond to the time-to-bottom from the Opticem simulation dated April 18, 2010. Table

This document may contain confidential information and is intended only for the use of the parties to whom it is addressed. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any information in this document is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document in error, please notify the sender immediately at the telephone number indicated above.

Craig Gardner Team Leader - Cementing

Energy Technology Company Drilling and Completions Department 3901 Briarpark Houston, TX 77042 Tel 713.954.6154 Fax 713.954.6177 [email protected]

Sambhav N. "Sam" Sankar Deputy Chief Counsel National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling One Thomas Circle, 4th Floor Washington DC 20005 October 26, 2010 NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE BP DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL AND OFFSHORE DRILLING CEMENT TESTING RESULTS MR. SAMBHAV N. "SAM" SANKAR This report summarizes the results of the testing conducted in the cementing laboratory at Chevron’s Briarpark facility at the request of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. We conducted these tests using samples of cement and additives supplied by Halliburton and sent to the Chevron laboratory at the request of the Commission. To our knowledge, these materials were supplied by Halliburton as representative of materials used on the Deepwater Horizon but are neither bulk plant samples nor rig samples from the actual job. The mud sample used in the contamination testing described in this report was supplied by MI Swaco at the Commission’s request. It is a sample of drilling fluid from an actual drilling operation (i.e. not laboratory-prepared nor taken from a freshly-built mud in a liquid mud plant). MI Swaco supplied an analysis (mud check) with the sample, and a similar suite of tests were run in the Chevron drilling fluids laboratory to confirm the fluid characteristics. Both the MI Swaco results and the Chevron results compare reasonably well with the field mud check #79 dated April 19, 2010. Copies of the mud reports are contained in the Appendix.

October 26, 2010 Page 2


The testing was based on the Halliburton laboratory report dated April 12, 2010 and contained in Appendix J of the BP report Deepwater Horizon Accident Investigation Report, September 8, 2010, Appendix J. Most of the tests were conducted using multiple protocols. API and ISO cementing standards are, for the most part, technically identical standards which allow latitude in test procedures. The Halliburton report does not contain sufficient information to determine the exact test protocol used in the Halliburton lab in all cases. Halliburton elected not to provide additional information clarifying its testing protocols that was requested through the Commission. Therefore, a range of test procedures was selected to encompass a variety of test conditions. Many of the test results were in reasonable agreement with those reported by Halliburton. However, we were unable to generate stable foam with any of the tests described in Section 9 of this report.

Craig Gardner



Table of Contents Section 1: Thickening Time ......................................................................................................4 Section 2: Mud Balance ............................................................................................................4 Section 3: Mixability.................................................................................................................4 Section 4: Fluid-Loss and Free-Fluid Testing ..........................................................................5 Section 5: UCA Compressive Strength.....................................................................................5 Section 6: Crush Compressive Strength ...................................................................................7 Section 7: FYSA Viscosity Profile and Gel Strength ...............................................................7 Section 8: Rheological Profile Measurements ..........................................................................8 Section 9: Foam Mixing and Stability ......................................................................................9 Section 10: Mud Contamination of Unfoamed Slurry Sonic Strength Development .............12 Section 11: Stability of Foamed Cement with Mud or Spacer Contamination.......................13 Section 12: Static Gel Strength Development ........................................................................13 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................14



Section 1: Thickening Time Two test schedules were used: (1) 135°F reached in 83 minutes with 14,458 psig (2) 135°F reached in 230 minutes with 14,458 psig Schedule (1) is taken from the Halliburton report. In schedule (2), the time-to-temperature is lengthened to correspond to the time-to-bottom from the Opticem simulation dated April 18, 2010. Table 1: Thickening Time Test Results

Test Schedule

Laboratory Test Identifier

30 Bc (hh:mm)

40 Bc (hh:mm)

50 Bc (hh:mm)

70 Bc (hh:mm)

1 Halliburton 73909/2 07:25 07:34 07:36 07:37 1 Chevron 100432-6 08:11 08:14 08:16 08:18 2 Chevron 100431-5 08:14 08:17 08:18 08:20

Section 2: Mud Balance Density of the base slurry was confirmed with a pressurized fluid density balance using the method described in Clause 6 of API RP10B-2/ISO10426-2. Table 2: Pressurized Mud Balance Results

Laboratory Test Identifier Slurry Density (lbm/gallon) Halliburton 811529 16.7

Chevron 100431-5 foamed weigh up sheet 16.7

Section 3: Mixability The slurry was prepared according to Clause 5 of API RP10B-2/ISO10426-2. Halliburton’s report rated the slurry mixability as a “4” on a scale of 1 to 5, with zero being assigned to a slurry which is deemed unmixable. Chevron rated the slurry as mixable using a combination of factors:



The dry powder was incorporated into the mix fluid easily in 12-18 seconds depending on the particular test. The blender consistently achieved 12,000 rpm and good slurry vortices were observed. However, sedimentation was noted in the blender bowl. The initial consistency of the slurry was 13 - 18 Bc depending on the particular test. For context, Chevron uses an initial consistency value of 35 Bc (maximum) as a mixability “flag”. Section 4: Fluid Loss and Free Fluid Testing Halliburton did not report these tests. They were included in the present testing program because un-foamed cap and shoe track slurries were pumped on the job. The slurries were conditioned in a high-temperature, high-pressure consistometer according to the same test schedules used for the thickening time testing. The fluid loss tests were conducted according to API RP10B-2/ISO 10426-2 Clause 10, using a “short cell” fluid loss apparatus. The free-fluid tests were conducted according to API RP10B-2/ISO 10426-2 Clause 15.5, using the ambient temperature static period. The free-fluid tests were conducted with the 250-mL graduated cylinder inclined at 45 degrees and 90 degrees (vertical). The results are found in Table 3. Table 3: Fluid Loss and Free Water Results

Test Schedule

Conditioning Test Identifier

Fluid Loss (mL/30 min)

Free Fluid (90° vertical)

Free Fluid (45° angle)

1 HTHP 100432-6 578 1.6 percent 2 percent 2 HTHP 100431-5 456 zero Channel present 1 Atmospheric 100432-6 Not Run Settling1 8.8 percent

1Slurry sampled from the top of the graduate weighed 15.96 lbm/gal. Slurry sampled from the bottom of the graduate weighed 17.4 lbm/gal Section 5: UCA Compressive Strength The sonic compressive strength of the base slurry was measured according to Clause 8 of API RP10B-2/ISO10426-2, using an ultrasonic cement analyzer. Three testing schedules were used:

1) Heat to 135°F in 83 minutes with 14,458 psig (thickening time schedule), condition for a total elapsed time of 3 hours from initial application of temperature and pressure, remove from the consistometer and place in a pre-heated 135°F UCA and



heat from 135°F to 210°F in 4 hours with a confining pressure of 14,458 psig. Data are presented using both algorithm B and the foamed-cementing algorithm.

2) Heat to 135°F in 83 minutes with 14,458 psig (thickening time schedule), condition for a total elapsed time of 3 hours from initial application of temperature and pressure, remove from the consistometer and place in a pre-heated 135°F UCA and heat from 135°F to 180°F in 4 hours with a confining pressure of 14,458 psig (this procedure was intended to allow a comparison with the crushed foamed cube data). Data are presented using both algorithm B and the foamed-cementing algorithm.

3) The slurry was conditioned for 3 hours in an atmospheric consistometer at 135°F. Starting with a cold cup, place in the atmospheric consistometer and ramp temperature to 135°F as quickly as possible. Remove from the consistometer and place in a pre-heated 135°F UCA and heat 135°F to 210°F in 4 hours with a confining pressure of 14,458 psig. Data are presented using both algorithm B and the foamed-cementing algorithm.

The results are summarized in the Table 4. Copies of the test charts are found in the Appendix. The effect of drilling fluid contamination on sonic strength development is described in Section 11. Table 4: UCA Compressive Strength Development

Laboratory Schedule Pressure 50 psi (hr:min)

500 psi (hr:min)

12 hour (psi)

24 hour (psi)

48 hour (psi)

Final (psi)

Halliburton

Circulate 3 hours before pouring

14,458 08:12 08:40 2301 2966 3099 ---

Chevron Protocol 1 (B algorithm) 14,458 05:57 06:24 2945 3550 3831 3918@108

hrs Chevron Protocol 1

(foam algorithm)

14,458 06:01 06:40 1040 1155 1206 1221@108 hrs

Chevron Protocol 2 (B algorithm) 14,458 09:58 10:47 1302 3001 3541 3760@108


(foam algorithm)

14,458 10:03 11:25 643 1050 1153 1193 @ 108 hrs

Chevron Protocol 3 (B algorithm) 14,458 06:31 06:59 3152 3976 4481 4575 @ 73


(foam algorithm)

14,458 06:35 07:15 1078 1232 --- 1232 @ 24 hrs



Section 6: Crush Compressive Strength The plan was to replicate the crushed cube compressive strength values reported in the Halliburton report with the test ID 806069. A Humboldt Manufacturing Company Model 2820 3-gang, 2-inch brass mold was prepared according to API RP10B-4/ISO 10426-4. The molds were sealed with gasket material to allow curing in an atmospheric pressure water bath at 180°F. After 48 hours curing, the samples were removed from the molds and were observed to have lost approximately one-half inch of their original two-inch height (photographs in Appendix). Therefore, no further tests were conducted. Section 7: FYSA Viscosity Profile and Gel Strength The Fann Yield Stress Adapter is a proprietary Halliburton test device that replaces the bob and sleeve in a Fann 35-type rotational viscometer. The device and test method are described in SPE 133050, Techniques for the Study of Foamed Cement Rheology, Olowolagba and Brenneis, 2010. This test was not performed during the present study because a stable foam could not be obtained as described in the Section 9 on foamed stability testing. Table 5 contains only Halliburton-reported results. Table 5: FYSA Viscosity Profile

Laboratory Temperature 600 rpm

300 rpm

200 rpm

100 rpm

60 rpm

30 rpm

6 rpm

3 rpm

Halliburton (Test ID 806074)

80°F 14 7 5 3 1 1 1 1

6D=1, 3D=1 The FYSA viscosity profile is measured using a different instrument and procedure than the rotor-and-bob configuration described in API RP10B-2/ISO 10426-2, Clause 12. The FYSA viscosity profile cannot be compared with the rheological results that follow in Section 8, Table 6 because of the differences in test methodology and instruments.



Section 8: Rheological Profile Measurements The rheological values reported in Table 6 were measured using a direct-reading rotational viscometer as described in API RP10B-2/ISO 10426-2, Clause 12. A variety of conditioning methods and measurement sequences were used. Table 6: Rheological Profile Measurements

Laboratory Test Conditions

600 rpm

300 rpm

200 rpm

100 rpm

60 rpm

30 rpm

20 rpm

10 rpm

6 rpm

3 rpm

Halliburton (ID 806075) Note 1 180 84 56 28 26 8 6 4 2 2

Chevron Note 2 164 78 52 26 16 8 6 4 2 2

Chevron Note 2 (rerun) 180 80 58 26 16 8 6 4 2 2

Chevron Note 3 136 69 45 25 16 10 8 6 6 4 Halliburton (ID 806075) Note 4 130 56 40 20 12 8 6 4 4 2

Chevron Note 5 124 57 38 23 16 11 9 8 6 4 Chevron Note 6 176 92 64 36 24 14 12 8 6 4 Chevron Note 7 120 76 56 32 22 14 12 10 8 6 180°F – Slurry Conditioning Unknown 2 80°F – Slurry as mixed – no conditioning, measure and record 300 rpm to 3 rpm readings , then measure and record 600 rpm reading 3 80°F – Slurry as mixed – no conditioning, measure and record 3 rpm to 300 rpm to 3 rpm readings , then measure and record 600 rpm reading. Report the average values for the 3 rpm to 300 rpm readings. (RP10B-2/ISO 10426-2 Clause 12) 4135°F – Slurry Conditioning Unknown 5135°F Condition for 30 minutes in atmospheric consistometer. Take measurements from 3 rpm to 300 rpm to 3 rpm and average. Take 600 rpm reading last 6135°F Condition in an HTHP consistometer for 83-minute heat-up plus 30 minutes additional conditioning. Take measurements from 600 rpm to 3 rpm 7135°F Condition in HTHP consistometer for 230-minute heat-up. Take measurements from 600 to 3 rpm



Section 9: Foam Mixing and Stability A series of nine tests were conducted under varying conditions as described below. Each test consisted of multiple measurements. API RP10B-4 and ISO 10426-4 are silent on the matter of slurry conditioning so several conditioning methods were used. None of the tests produced a stable foam. Foamed stability was assessed using several methods:

a) Visual inspection of the fluids: base slurry and foamed slurry b) Density measurements of slurry sampled from the blender c) Density measurement of slurry sampled from graduated cylinder after a 2-hour quiescent period according to API RP10B-4/ISO 10426-4 Clause 9.3.1. d) Density measurement by Archimedes’ Principle of samples cured in PVC molds at 180°F according to API RP10B-4/ISO 10426-4 Clause 9.3.3.

The tests are described briefly below and the density measurements summarized in Table 7. Test 1. Target design foamed density: 14.5 lbm/gal. The slurry was foamed immediately after mixing (no conditioning). The slurry was foamed with a multi-blade assembly (API RP10B-4/ISO 10426-4 Clause 5) for 15 seconds @ 12,000 rpm. A density check of a sample of the foamed cement in a plastic cube of known volume showed the density to be below the designed density. Settling was noted in both the base slurry and the foam so the stability tests in the graduated cylinder and the PVC tubes were not performed. Density measurements were recorded from slurry sampled from the top, bottom and middle of the mixing blender. The results are reported in Table 7. Test 2. Target design foamed density: 14.5 lbm/gal. Because of the instability noted in the base slurry and foamed slurry in Test 1, the test procedure was modified. Slurry quantities were adjusted to allow mixing and foaming in the same blender. This eliminated the need to transfer slurry from the mixing blender to the foaming blender thereby avoiding the effects of sedimentation in the base slurry. The slurry was foamed for 15 seconds @ 12,000 rpm using the single blade assembly (API RP10B-4/ISO 10426-4 Clause 5). A density check of a sample of the foamed cement in a plastic cube of known volume showed the density to be below the designed density. Settling was again noted in both the base slurry and the foam, so the stability tests in the graduated cylinder and the PVC tubes were not performed. Density measurements were recorded from slurry sampled from the top, bottom and middle of the mixing blender. The results are reported in Table 7. Test 3. This was a repeat of Test 1 except that the graduated-cylinder and PVC-mold stability tests were performed. Target design foamed density: 14.5 lbm/gal. The slurry was foamed with a multi-blade assembly (API RP10B-4/ISO 10426-4 Clause 5) for 15 seconds @ 12,000 rpm. A density check of a sample of the foamed cement in a plastic cube of known volume showed the density to be below the designed density. The stability tests in the graduated cylinder and PVC molds were conducted. The results are shown in Table 7.



Test 4. This was the first test to include slurry conditioning. The target design density was 14.5 lbm/gal. The slurry was conditioned on an atmospheric consistometer for 20 minutes at 110°F (one of the schedules reported by Cementing Solution Inc. for their tests – Appendix K of the BP report). The slurry was foamed with a multi-blade assembly for 15 seconds @ 12,000 rpm. The density was found to be low. Settling was observed in the base and foamed slurry. The stability tests in the graduated cylinder and PVC molds were conducted. The results are reported in Table 7. Because the measured foam density continued to be low, the laboratory calculations and the density of the base slurry were verified. API RP10B-4/ISO 10426-4 Clause 7.2 describes a method for determining an “offset factor” if the foam density is less than the design density. In this case, the offset factor was 0.4 lbm/gal. In an attempt to attain a foam density of 14.5 lbm/gal, the target foam density was 14.9 lbm/gal in subsequent tests. Test 5. This test was performed using the offset factor calculated during Test 4. In an attempt to attain a foam density of 14.5 lbm/gal, the target foam density was 14.9 lbm/gal. The slurry was foamed immediately after mixing without conditioning. A density check of a sample of the foamed cement in a plastic cube of known volume showed the density to be 14.9 lbm/gal. The density attained matched the calculated value (14.9 lbm/gal) but failed to exhibit the expected drop from the offset factor (14.5 lbm/gal was expected). API RP10B-4/ISO 10426-4 Clause 7.2 (j) recommends redesigning the base slurry if the offset factor does not give the desired result. It was decided to continue with the 14.9 lbm/gal foam density for future tests as this was the value reported in the Halliburton report (specific gravity = 1.8). The stability tests in the graduated cylinder and PVC molds were conducted. The results are reported in Table 7. Test 6. This test began with conditioning the slurry on an atmospheric consistometer for three (3) hours at 135°F. The conditioning period matched the time reported in the Halliburton report. The offset factor density of 14.9 lbm/gal was used. The slurry was foamed with a multi-blade assembly for 15 seconds @ 12,000 rpm. Slight settling of the base slurry was noted. The density check of a sample of the foamed cement in a plastic cube of known volume showed the density to be 14.7 lbm/gal. Stability tests in the graduated cylinder and PVC molds were conducted. The results are reported in Table 7. The density measurements from the graduated- cylinder samples were unusually high so it was decided to re-run Test 6. Test 7. This was a repeat of Test 6. The test began with conditioning the slurry on an atmospheric consistometer for three (3) hours at 135°F. The conditioning period matched the time reported in the Halliburton report. The offset factor density of 14.9 lbm/gal was used. The slurry was foamed with a multi-blade assembly for 15 seconds @ 12,000 rpm. Slight settling of the base slurry was noted. The density check of a sample of the foamed cement in a plastic cube of known volume again showed the density to be 14.7 lbm/gal. Stability tests in the graduated



cylinder and PVC molds were conducted. The results are reported in Table 7. The results of Test 7 are in reasonable agreement with those of Test 6. Density measurements from the graduated-cylinder samples were again high but a careful examination of the volume in the graduated cylinder indicated an approximate 10 mL reduction at the end of the 2 hour quiescent period. This reduction alone would account for a density increase from the initial 14.7 lbm/gal to 15.3 lbm/gal. Test 8. This was a repeat of Test 7 using a mill sample of Lafarge Class H cement obtained from the manufacturer rather than the cement sample from Halliburton. The additives supplied by Halliburton for the Commission testing were used so the only change was the cement sample. The test began with conditioning the slurry on an atmospheric consistometer for three (3) hours at 135°F. The conditioning period matched the time reported in the Halliburton report. The offset factor density of 14.9 lbm/gal was used. The slurry was foamed with a multi-blade assembly for 15 seconds @ 12,000 rpm. The density check of a sample of the foamed cement in a plastic cube of known volume showed the density to be 14.0 lbm/gal. Stability tests in the graduated cylinder and PVC molds were conducted. The results are reported in Table 7. The performance was not improved by the change in cement sample. Test 9. Test 9 was a repeat of Test 6 and Test 7 and achieved similar results. The test began with conditioning the slurry on an atmospheric consistometer for three (3) hours at 135°F. The conditioning period matched the time reported in the Halliburton report. The offset factor density of 14.9 lbm/gal was used. The slurry was foamed with a multi-blade assembly for 15 seconds @ 12,000 rpm. Slight settling of the base slurry was noted. The density check of a sample of the foamed cement in a plastic cube of known volume showed the density to be 14.64 lbm/gal. Stability tests in the graduated cylinder and PVC molds were conducted. The results are reported in Table 7. Tests 6, 7, and 9 are in reasonable agreement.



Table 7: Foamed Cement Stability Testing

Test Number

Density from Blender lbm/gal

Density from Graduated Cylinder

lbm/gal

Density from PVC Molds lbm/gal

Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom Very Bottom1

1 12.77 13.38 14.06 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 2 13.89 12.95 14.16 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 3 NR2 NR NR 10.23 12.21 13.34 11.7 13.30 14.10 NR 4 13.82 NR 14.13 13.67 14.14 14.41 11.96 11.84 11.80 12.13 5 14.95 NR NR 13.70 14.22 14.98 13.97 13.82 13.96 14.73 6 14.66 NR NR 15.85 16.09 16.30 12.80 12.86 13.07 12.51 7 14.71 NR NR 14.99 16.11 16.43 12.16 13.15 13.79 13.70 8 14.04 NR NR 9.80 15.84 16.83 14.05 18.27 19.14 19.87 9 14.64 NR NR 15.75 16.25 16.51 12.91 13.39 14.17 14.63

1The notation “very bottom” refers to the portion of cement contained predominately in the end cap of the PVC fixture. 2NR = Not Run Section 10: Effect of Mud Contamination on Un-foamed Slurry Sonic Strength Development The effect of drilling-fluid contamination on unfoamed slurry sonic strength development was measured according to API RB10B-2/ISO 10426-2 Clause 16.5, using an ultrasonic cement analyzer (UCA) at 210°F and 14,458 psig. Drilling-fluid concentrations of 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, and 30% by volume were used. Note that the dilutions are noted “by volume” but were prepared in the laboratory by mass for greater accuracy (rather than mixing by volume using beakers or similar containers). The final sonic strength decreased as drilling fluid contamination increased, but the time required to achieve 100 psig sonic strength was not greatly affected. Table 8: Drilling Fluid Contamination of Base Slurry

Contamination %

50 psi (hr:min)

100 psi (hr:min)

500 psi (hr:min)

12 hour (psi)

24 hour (psi)

48 hour (psi)

Final (psi)

0 2:49 8:43 9:21 2584 3718 4414 4210 5 4:02 7:28 8:04 2170 2792 3090 3160 10 5:07 7:42 8:24 2089 2612 2763 2763 15 8:36 8:45 9:26 1203 1541 1649 1717 20 8:09 8:16 9:12 890 1071 1126 1117 25 8:04 8:12 --- 271 322 343 345 301 3:55 7:25 8:37 717 814 837 828



1The 30 percent contamination test was repeated 3 times because it was difficult to maintain a homogenous mixture of drilling fluid and cement slurry at this contamination level. The strength results did not follow the final strength trend. 2500 psi sonic strength was not obtained at this contamination level. Section 11: Stability of Foamed Cement with Mud or Spacer Contamination The original plan included evaluating the effect of drilling fluid or spacer contamination on foamed cement stability by two methods: 1) Stirring 5, 10, and 15 percent volume of drilling fluid or spacer into the foamed cement slurry in a manner similar to the CSI testing contained in the BP report. 2) Coating the interior of the 250-mL graduated cylinder used for the foam stability test with mud or spacer, then adding the foamed cement and evaluating the effect. Neither test series was conducted due to the inability to generate stable foams. Section 12: Static Gel Strength Development The static gel strength of the base slurry was tested using two methods: Static Gel Strength Analyzer (ultrasonic method). The slurry was conditioned in an HTHP consistometer. The slurry was heated to 135°F in 83 minutes with 14,458 psig as described in ISO 10426-6. Test conditions were maintained at 135°F and 14,458 psig for 162 minutes, for a total of 245 minutes (Job Placement Time). The slurry was then removed and placed in a 135°F pre-heated SGSA with 14,458 psig. Multiple Analysis Cement Slurry (MACS II). The slurry was conditioned in the MACS II. The slurry was heated to 135°F in 83 minutes with 14,458 psig as described in API RP10B-6/ISO 10426-6. Test conditions were maintained at 135°F and 14,458 psig for 162 minutes, for a total of 245 minutes (Job Placement Time) before beginning the static gel strength development period.



Table 9: Static Gel Strength Development

Instrument Time to 100 lbf/100 ft2 gel strength

Time to 500 lbf/100 ft2 gel strength Transition Time

SGSA 2:17:30 3:44:00 1:26 MACS1 4:04:00 4:41:00 0:37

1The MACS data may not be correct due to the sedimentation exhibited by the base slurry.



Appendix Drilling Fluid Analyses ........................................................................................... Figures 1 - 3 Thickening Time Charts ......................................................................................... Figures 4 - 5 Free Fluid Photographs ......................................................................................... Figures 6 - 11 UCA Compressive Strength Charts .................................................................... Figures 12 - 17 Cube Compressive Strength Photos .................................................................... Figures 18 - 19 Drilling Fluid – Cement Contamination UCA Charts ........................................ Figures 20 - 26



Figure 1: Rig Drilling Fluid Report



Figure 2: Drilling Fluid Report Supplied by MI Swaco with Commission Mud Sample



Figure 3: Chevron Analysis of MI Swaco Commission Sample



Figure 4: Thickening Time 100432-6 (82 minute heat-up)



Figure 5: Thickening Time (230 minute heat-up)



Figure 6: Free Fluid - Protocol 1 HTHP - 90 degree








Figure 10: Free Fluid - Protocol 1 Atmospheric - 90 degree

Figure 11: Free Fluid - Protocol 1 Atmospheric - 45 degree



Figure 12: UCA Testing - Protocol 1 - Algorithm B (un-foamed)



Figure 13: UCA Testing - Protocol 1 - Foamed Cement Algorithm















Figure 18: 48 hour Cubes in Mold

Figure 19: 48 hour Cubes Removed from Mold



Figure 20: Zero Percent NAF Contamination



Figure 21: 5 Percent NAF Contamination



Figure 22: 10 percent NAF Contamination









Figure 25: 25 percent NAF Contamination




Documents

Craig Gardner Energy Technology Company Drilling and … · 2017. 5. 11. · lengthened to correspond to the time-to-bottom from the Opticem simulation dated April 18, 2010. Table